Judge to Decide Legality of Prosecutor’s Appointment in Trump Cases

A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, is set to hear arguments challenging the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney. The legal team representing former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James is asking for the dismissal of charges against their clients, asserting that Halligan’s appointment was made illegally.

The hearing, scheduled for Thursday, focuses on the constitutional and statutory rules surrounding the appointment of U.S. attorneys, who serve as the principal federal prosecutors in their districts. Typically, these roles are filled by lawyers nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. However, under certain circumstances, attorneys general can appoint interim U.S. attorneys to serve for a limited period of 120 days.

Once this period expires, the law stipulates that federal judges in the district have exclusive authority to determine who fills the vacancy. The defense argues that this protocol was not followed in Halligan’s case. Following the resignation of interim U.S. attorney Erik Siebert in September 2023—amid pressure from the Trump administration to prosecute Comey and James—the appointment of Halligan was made by Attorney General Pam Bondi at the urging of former President Donald Trump.

Siebert had been appointed earlier in January to serve on an interim basis, with Trump announcing plans to nominate him formally. Judges in the Eastern District had unanimously supported Siebert’s continuation in the role after his initial term ended. However, following his departure, the Justice Department made another interim appointment, which the defense argues was not legally sanctioned.

Prosecutors contend that the law does not explicitly prohibit successive interim appointments and maintain that even if Halligan’s appointment is ruled invalid, it does not necessitate the dismissal of the charges. Comey has pleaded not guilty to allegations of making a false statement and obstructing Congress, while James has also entered a not guilty plea concerning charges of mortgage fraud.

Both defendants’ legal teams have asserted that the prosecutions are retaliatory, driven by Trump’s personal hostility towards them. They are pressing for the cases to be dismissed entirely, claiming improper motivations behind the charges.

As the proceedings unfold, the implications of the judge’s ruling could significantly impact these high-profile cases and the legal landscape surrounding U.S. attorney appointments.